list_drafts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

注释已经声明 readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false，安全性质已由结构化字段覆盖。描述额外说明了分页行为和通过 draft/count 返回草稿总数，这补充了部分响应行为；但未涉及排序、是否包含已删除草稿等更深层行为。没有与注释冲突。

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

描述只有一句话，前半句直接给出核心操作'分页列出草稿'，后半句补充返回值中的总数信息，没有冗余内容。整体结构紧凑，信息密度高，适合代理快速读取。

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

工具本身较简单，有输出 schema 承担返回结构说明，注释也覆盖了只读和幂等性。描述已经覆盖了分页和总数这两个关键行为，基本能让代理正确调用。唯一不足是没有明确说明 count/offset 的具体规则以及是否存在过滤、排序等行为，但整体已完成主要闭环。

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

schema 描述覆盖率为 0%，因此描述本应承担解释 count 和 offset 的责任。description 只说'分页列出'，暗示 count/offset 是分页参数，但没有说明 count 是页码还是每页数量、offset 的含义、是否有最大值或默认行为。对这些参数的实际语义补充不足。

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

描述明确说明了工具行为：分页列出草稿并附带草稿总数，动词和资源都很清楚。虽然没有直接与 list_published、get_draft 等兄弟工具做区分，但'草稿'这一资源已足以让代理理解它的用途。

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

描述没有说明何时使用该工具，也没有提供与 get_draft、list_published、delete_draft 等替代工具的对比或排除条件。代理只能根据工具名称和'列出草稿'这层含义推断场景，缺少明确的 when-to-use 指导。

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.